Billo Discovers Black People Eat In Restaurants

Incite-Incite-Incite...............!

Thats all you dog pilers do...you cannot address real issues...so you go for the riots...!
 
Okay...

I have now listened to the actual context. I was actually surprised about a few things.

Which I will outline here.

Bill's remarks were definitely taken out of context, first he begins by explaining that the segment was about racism, he is "speaking" to racism when he makes the first of the remarks. You know the "surprised" remark. Which I understood to mean (very slightly tongue in cheek) that he was surprised that it wasn't marketed to a specific market as most of the clientèle belonged to a specific segment of the population. Then he continued on quite a long portion taken out from the segment, then they were spliced together.

He goes on to talk about racism that he used to meet, then current different misunderstandings, and explains that the gangsta portion of the population is very small. He then speaks of the OJ thing, and says that if he gets convicted now there would be only a small portion of the population that might get out of hand a bit, but not very many.

Then he begins a conversation with Juan Williams, mentions his book "Enough", then they begin to speak on the whole racism wherein he mentions the second portion... Again, tongue in cheek, about the whole gangsta portion of the remarks. He talks about how many white people think that black culture is "dominated" by Gangsta... Please listen to the context and see if you hear it the way that I do. You'll have to listen to about 15 minutes of it to hear both portions of the out of context statement. The first comes up early, but the second portion is quite a long way after the first portion and is clearly a tongue in cheek representation mocking what others might expect.

You can find the actual full segment here on his blog:

Link
 
Onceler said:
Karma's a bitch.

I don't think O'Reilly has given any leftie the benefit of "in context" in his life...
Click to expand...
Ah, it's the "They do it too!" defense, it isn't valid in political or a news context.

If you wish to have the moral high ground, then you must act it.

I gave him the benefit, then listened to what I thought was the segment and came to the same conclusion as many did, was laughing at the man and thought he meant them and that they were actually in context.

Then I went in search of the actual context and found that amazingly, they were not in context and much of it so far out of context that it couldn't even be accidentally considered what I thought it was once I heard it in context.

The first portion, "surprised" could be heard either way and likely will be heard negatively by those who dislike him, and positively by those who do like him. Me I think he did what many do, and simply stated something poorly. The second portion with the "m'f'er" stuff in it, not even close to what I thought it sounded like, and only those who believe he is Satan incarnate would believe that he meant it that way after hearing it in context.
 
I don't really wish to have the moral high ground on this one. O'Reilly is a menace, and has hurt a lot of good people. I don't care how he goes down; I just want him down...
 
The moral high ground is useless in a pit of alligators....
Kindness and fairness is viewed as weakness to be exploited.
 
Onceler said:
I don't really wish to have the moral high ground on this one. O'Reilly is a menace, and has hurt a lot of good people. I don't care how he goes down; I just want him down...
Click to expand...
Fair enough, now move aside for others who might have something different to say. Thanks for your input, and I am glad that you don't provide me my news. And if O'Reilly indeed uses out of context, I am also glad that he doesn't provide me my news.
 
Onceler said:
Isn't the expression "bitch-slapped?" I have never heard that one, though there does seem to be an inordinate focus on male genitalia within the confines of the board here...
Click to expand...

I guess it is about time for all the talk about male porno stars again ?
 
Onceler said:
Isn't the expression "bitch-slapped?" I have never heard that one, though there does seem to be an inordinate focus on male genitalia within the confines of the board here...
Click to expand...

I'm sure I've heard it before, but I hope I just made it up.
 
Damocles said:
Okay...

I have now listened to the actual context. I was actually surprised about a few things.

Which I will outline here.

Bill's remarks were definitely taken out of context, first he begins by explaining that the segment was about racism, he is "speaking" to racism when he makes the first of the remarks. You know the "surprised" remark. Which I understood to mean (very slightly tongue in cheek) that he was surprised that it wasn't marketed to a specific market as most of the clientèle belonged to a specific segment of the population. Then he continued on quite a long portion taken out from the segment, then they were spliced together.

He goes on to talk about racism that he used to meet, then current different misunderstandings, and explains that the gangsta portion of the population is very small. He then speaks of the OJ thing, and says that if he gets convicted now there would be only a small portion of the population that might get out of hand a bit, but not very many.

Then he begins a conversation with Juan Williams, mentions his book "Enough", then they begin to speak on the whole racism wherein he mentions the second portion... Again, tongue in cheek, about the whole gangsta portion of the remarks. He talks about how many white people think that black culture is "dominated" by Gangsta... Please listen to the context and see if you hear it the way that I do. You'll have to listen to about 15 minutes of it to hear both portions of the out of context statement. The first comes up early, but the second portion is quite a long way after the first portion and is clearly a tongue in cheek representation mocking what others might expect.

You can find the actual full segment here on his blog:

Link
Click to expand...

I listened to the whole segment already, and you are full of shit about the first part, there was nothing tongue in cheek about it, and it was outright racism.

The part about the tea, the second part, if you are being very generous, can be considered a play on what O'Reilly thinks white Americans think about black people; that they talk and act like rap stars. It is still tasteless, and further, projects what O'Reilly thinks about black people, onto what white america must think about black people, in the guise of "correcting the myth" that white people mistakenly believe in. Of course, few white people believe that black people talk like rap stars, and we didn't need O'Reiley's spreading of this "enlightment' in the first place.
 
Darla said:
I listened to the whole segment already, and you are full of shit about the first part, there was nothing tongue in cheek about it, and it was outright racism.

The part about the tea, the second part, if you are being very generous, can be considered a play on what O'Reilly thinks white Americans think about black people; that they talk and act like rap stars. It is still tasteless, and further, projects what O'Reilly thinks about black people, onto what white america must think about black people, in the guise of "correcting the myth" that white people mistakenly believe in. Of course, few white people believe that black people talk like rap stars, and we didn't need O'Reiley's spreading of this "enlightment' in the first place.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your assessment on the second part, and agreed that the first part would likely be taken that way. I'm not here to protect him, I don't care about him all that much.

However that second segment was clearly not what he believed, that you don't need his help with such "enlightenment" doesn't change that he wasn't actually shocked that people weren't talking that way. Taken in the context of the Media Matters article and their heavily edited version of the "segment" I had been on here trashing him for all of it.

Personally I believe that he simply stated poorly what he was trying to say in the first part, in the second I think it is a huge stretch to think that he was making any sort of "racist" statement.

Based on what I have heard, I am now embarrassed that I took what Media Matters put together and believed it wholeheartedly. I will not trust them again. Their clear misrepresentation of at least a large chunk of what was said and in what context makes me embarrassed that I took their word for it for so long.
 
lol well when he was sheltered and raised as a white supremacist basically.. this must have been eye opening. OMG black people are not all criminals..
 
Damocles said:
I disagree with your assessment on the second part, and agreed that the first part would likely be taken that way. I'm not here to protect him, I don't care about him all that much.

However that second segment was clearly not what he believed, that you don't need his help with such "enlightenment" doesn't change that he wasn't actually shocked that people weren't talking that way. Taken in the context of the Media Matters article and their heavily edited version of the "segment" I had been on here trashing him for all of it.

Personally I believe that he simply stated poorly what he was trying to say in the first part, in the second I think it is a huge stretch to think that he was making any sort of "racist" statement.

Based on what I have heard, I am now embarrassed that I took what Media Matters put together and believed it wholeheartedly. I will not trust them again. Their clear misrepresentation of at least a large chunk of what was said and in what context makes me embarrassed that I took their word for it for so long.
Click to expand...

Having listened to the whole thing, there is no misrepresentaton the guy is a racist and an idiot. But if you need to make yourself feel better by demonizing Media Matters, well, that's the Republican way Damo, so go ahead. After you're done with that, you can bash around Moveon.org. I don't care.

I just wanted to make sure you knew you hadn't "settled" some point by making your announcement here. Because I think you're so wrong that I have to wonder if you're even being totally honest.
 
Darla said:
Having listened to the whole thing, there is no misrepresentaton the guy is a racist and an idiot. But if you need to make yourself feel better by demonizing Media Matters, well, that's the Republican way Damo, so go ahead. After you're done with that, you can bash around Moveon.org. I don't care.

I just wanted to make sure you knew you hadn't "settled" some point by making your announcement here. Because I think you're so wrong that I have to wonder if you're even being totally honest.
Click to expand...
What? I won't trust O'Reilly as I have heard that he too takes things out of context. It isn't political.

I'm just embarrassed to have believed it as they put it forward and I won't trust their stuff again without major checking.

That is all.

I too wonder if you are being entirely honest with yourself. If you cannot see that they had taken this out of context, and clearly they did. They spliced together seperate sections and thus made it seem far worse than it was, they did it well, I thought it was the full segment.

Even if I accept the first portion as entirely racist, the second portion is totally not as it was represented in their spliced version of the event.
 
Damocles said:
What? I won't trust O'Reilly as I have heard that he too takes things out of context. It isn't political.

I'm just embarrassed to have believed it as they put it forward and I won't trust their stuff again without major checking.

That is all.
Click to expand...

It's true, so you dont' have to be embarrassed about believing it.
 
Darla said:
It's true, so you dont' have to be embarrassed about believing it.
Click to expand...
Except it wasn't. I accepted their version of the events. I actually believed that they had put the full segment on there. I hadn't realized that the second portion, the one that I thought far worse, was totally misrepresented and so totally taken out of context. Had something like this been put on O'Reilly's show I would have checked into it. I didn't with these people. I'm embarrassed that I took a political site as a news outlet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top